01Facts
The Appellant (Promoter) entered into an agreement with the 1st Respondent on 18.10.2019 for the sale of a residential plot for Rs. 1,02,25,000/-.
p. 3Despite the 1st Respondent paying the consideration, the Appellant sold the plot to a third party, citing the cancellation of a General Power of Attorney by the original landowner.
p. 3The Adjudicating Officer, TNRERA, ordered compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 50,000/- in favor of the 1st Respondent on 03.06.2025.
p. 2This order was confirmed by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TNREAT) on 11.03.2026.
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is maintainable under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in the absence of a substantial question of law.
p. 3 / para. 4ii.2. Whether a contract between a landowner and a Promoter affects the statutory and contractual rights of a purchaser against the Promoter.
pp. 3-4 / para. 703Law Applied
Section 58(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which stipulates that an appeal against an Appellate Tribunal’s order lies to the High Court only on grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, necessitating the existence of a "substantial question of law".
pp. 2-3The principle of privity of contract, establishing that a purchaser's rights are determined by their specific contract with the Promoter, independent of third-party agreements between the Promoter and the landowner.
p. 3Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Section 58
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 100
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the grounds raised by the Appellant were essentially factual in nature rather than legal.
p. 3It reasoned that under Section 58 of the Act, 2016, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings unless a substantial question of law is presented.
p. 4The Court held that the internal contractual failures between the landowner and the Promoter (such as the cancellation of a Power of Attorney) do not absolve the Promoter of their obligations toward the purchaser under the sale agreement.
pp. 3-4Since both TNRERA and TNREAT had already adjudicated the facts and documents, there was no scope for the High Court to re-examine factual findings.
p. 405Holding
The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable as it failed to raise any substantial question of law as mandated by Section 58 of the Act, 2016.
p. 4The Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal and confirmed the orders of the lower forums granting compensation and costs to the 1st Respondent; all connected miscellaneous petitions were closed with no order as to costs.
p. 4Original Court PDF
M/s.VGN Projects Estates Private LimitedvsV.Kayalkodi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
